Los Arboles released from lawsuits
By Jesse Phelps

After years of litigation and months of scrutinizing, Judge Melinda Johnson has released her final ruling on Los Arboles II, a suit targeting the proposed luxury condominium project on South Montgomery Sreet.

Her decision: full speed ahead. In a separate ruling on Wednesday, Judge Steven Hintz completely rejected the validity of Los Arboles III, another suit aimed at stopping construction until the previous suits are settled, according to developer Lance Smigel.

Hintz wrote, "Having considered the subject matter, the court rules as follows: Moving parties' (the developers) requests for judicial notice are granted. The motion denying peremptory writ of mandate is granted." With the stoppage of the peremptory writ, construction is free to proceed.

In her ruling, Johnson reversed an earlier decision and deemed the development "consistent with the general plan" for the city of Ojai.

This is great news for city attorney Monte Widders, city manager Dan Singer, council members and developers Smigel and Lois Rice, who have been hit hard in the pocketbook over the course of the legal struggles, and it could mean an end to further litigation - or not, according to one of the petitioners.

"Now that the general plan's all fixed, we can't raise any objections except on appeal," said Ivor Benci-Woodward of the Citizens to Preserve the Ojai. "There are several issues (Johnson) didn't explain. Other than that, we can't really comment on it yet."

Benci-Woodward, however, did comment further, enough to explain that despite the latest rulings going in favor of the developers, he saw something of a victory for his organization as well.

"We win the first part of the case," he said. "The court has said, 'Yeah you guys were right and you're going to get paid for it. Yes, the city fixed things, but you'll get paid for what you did.'"

Benci-Woodward said the reimbursements could total up $75,000 for two years of work by the CPO's two attorneys.

Smigel contradicted this, saying the court was silent on the subject of fees. "Since they certainly didn't prevail on Los Arboles III and only partially prevailed on Los Arboles II, I think it's a matter for the court.

Because the developers were forced to stop and clarify," said Smigel, "It could be seen as prevailing. However, since they ultimately lost the case, the court finding the city and real parties did comply, there's some question as to whether they truly prevailed."

"Los Arboles II and Los Arboles III are over, I believe," continued Smigel. "It's my understanding that the only course of action would be appeal. With rulings this carefully, this thoughtfully, delivered, the motives of an appeal would be transparent.

I think that the petitioners know that the likelihood of prevailing would be small. Therefore, by seeking an appeal, they'd be seeking only delay."

© 2003 The Ojai Valley News

Back to the news